The study examined culturally responsive practices used as well as factors reported to support or inhibit Culturally Responsive Schooling practices and their relationship to Cultural Compatibility Theory. While cultural infusion and language learning demonstrate gains for students across multiple studies (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002; Quijada Cerecer, 2013), services provided are often focused on academic remediation rather than culturally sensitive instruction (Beaulieu, 2006).
An examination of literature revealed a lack of research demonstrating public schools’ alignment with the components of Cultural Compatibility Theory to support Culturally
Responsive Schooling for American Indian students. The purpose of the study was to identify local districts’ actions to incorporate Culturally Responsive Schooling into the curriculum to foster identity development among American Indian students. The study focused specifically on the ways in which components of the Cultural Compatibility Theory guide education for
American Indian students. The study also examined supportive and inhibitive factors present to support Culturally Responsive Schooling that is holistic in nature. The research study was guided by the following questions:
1. To what extent do educators teaching American Indian students report the
implementation of Culturally Responsive Schooling practices in alignment with the elements of Cultural Compatibility Theory in supporting American Indian identity development?
2. What do educators teaching American Indian students report as the factors in their schools that either support or inhibit the incorporation of effective Culturally Responsive Schooling to meet the needs of their students?
In order to address the research questions, the researcher developed an interview protocol to inquire about the use of Culturally Responsive Schooling practices to foster identity
development among American Indian students. The researcher conducted 19 interviews to gather data from three schools of varying demographics. Two of the three sites were located on American Indian reservations and the third was in close proximity to a reservation. The
American Indian student population at the schools ranged from 10% to over 90%.
Chapter V provides a discussion of the conclusions of the study, limitations of the study, and recommendations for practice and future research.
Discussion and Conclusions
In this section, a discussion of the findings and conclusions drawn from the study will be presented. The conclusions and discussions will be organized by research question. Within each research question, the conclusions drawn and pertinent research related to the conclusions will be presented.
Research Question 1
The components of Cultural Compatibility Theory state schooling of minority students’ needs to demonstrate inclusion of and sensitivity for specific cultural practices and values. In addition, the implementation of Culturally Responsive Schooling demonstrates student gains when implemented holistically across school services. Results of the current study identified that these considerations varied across educators based on their racial demographic. In this study,
non-American Indian teachers largely reported they incorporated pertinent cultural elements when they were listed as a course component (American history, Indigenous literature, etc.). In addition, while non-American Indian participants expressed adjustments to pedagogy, they were not all encompassing or specific to American Indian cultural values. The following participant quote illustrates incorporating culture only when determined by a textbook.
I do at least one self-contained Native American oral tradition and cultures unit in my American Literature class and then whatever the textbook offers in terms of reading throughout.
While the majority of non-American Indian educators cited cultural incorporation specific to a course component, four educators did cite attempts beyond course components to include culture as they were able.
Participant A stated:
I try to use as any titles and authors that deal with either Native American authors or subject as I can. In some classes that is easier than others. We also, again depend on the class, try to use a cultural perspective in some of our projects that we do.
Participant A’s response indicates intentionality to include cultural content as much as possible, but also illustrates cultural consideration to be specific to content rather than pedagogy.
According to Demmert and Towner (2003), cultural education requires the use of Native languages. Two of the twelve non-American Indian participants did remark on the use of Indigenous language greetings. The remaining non-American Indian educators reported that cultural language signage is in the school but that they are unfamiliar with the students’ native language. In relation to Cultural Compatibility Theory, this is problematic because it
communicates to the students a lack of interest and that their native language is unimportant. While language learning demonstrates significant gains academically (McCarty, 1993), it is also
of high importance among American Indian communities (Apthorp, 2016; Bird et al., 2013; McCarty et al., 2006).
Contrary to non-American Indian educators, American Indian staff acknowledged the development of students’ understanding of culture as the most important component to schooling for students.
Participant J stated:
What I found is if you don’t do that [teach culture], you can teach all year long and you won’t teach much. Once you teach who they are and to be prideful of that and give examples every day, then they will take the language and use it with pride in the hallways and elsewhere.
American Indian staff also strongly reported the need to be available to and develop relationships with students to aide in their cultural learning and development of cultural pride. These relationships are support Indigenous ways of knowing (Cajete, 1994; Deloria, 2001b; Wildcat, 2001a) and align with the assertions of Beaulieu (2006) about learning being social in nature and not being separated from its contextual relationships. These student supports are not content specific and illustrate the importance for cultural adaptations to be pervasive throughout the school rather than specific to one class or unit.
Participant O stated the importance of unstructured conversation in passing along cultural knowledge:
My room is often used as a place where students can come and take a break. We can talk then about the past, our ancestors, or our grandparents. I was born and raised here and I know a lot of these kids’ families and I can connect a lot with them…Just participating in conversation at different times . . . It gets tough to get that information out there
Responses also demonstrated a communal learning process in language and culture learning and an urgency to do so. American Indian educators stated regular use of the language with students. Not all American Indian educators were fluent however so the use of language varied. Non-fluent speakers shared their efforts to work with students to learn the language and believed learning alongside students was impactful in demonstrating the importance of language learning. This practice parallels the Cultural Compatibility Theory and the need for teachers to also take on the role of learner to demonstrate to students a reciprocal learning relationship. (Ladson-Billings, 1995b). Learning from students also places the student in the role of teacher and communicates to the student they their knowledge and experiences also hold value.
Participant K stated:
As a teacher and an Indian person that really frustrates me and I don’t want my students to feel degraded. That is how education has been designed, to exclude. You have to obey me [the teacher]. Our teaching is collaborative. Our kids learn by doing. They learn with us. We learn together and that is a shift that needs to happen but it doesn’t because nobody checks their privilege at the door.
Response differences between American Indian and non-American Indian educators may be attributed to the roles held by American Indian participants as all but one taught language and culture offerings or served in roles with Indian Education programs. While American Indian participants’ interaction with students lends itself to culture learning, they readily identified ways in which cultural considerations were absent in neighboring classrooms to foster student
development. Non-American Indian participants stated they lacked comfort with cultural inclusion. The cultural inclusion they did identify in their classrooms was specific to content (the use of American Indian authors, covering American Indian history) rather than pedagogical considerations (the use of cultural communication patterns, the inclusion of family, focusing on relationships).
Differences were also present between American Indian and non-American Indian
educators regarding their inclusion of family and community importance within American Indian culture. Non-American Indian participants acknowledged this importance but lacked explaining ways in which they embrace and foster those connections in their classrooms, with multiple participants citing they do not feel comfortable with implementation of cultural aspects in the classroom or curriculum.
American Indian participants stated the need of the school to work more consistently and sincerely with the communities and families. Multiple participants stated a lack of understanding for the importance of family and community relationships. American Indian communities highly value partnerships with their schools and are imperative to student success as cited by Lipka and McCarty (1994). Elders in American Indian communities are held in high regard and their inclusion in the education of American Indian youth holds value (Watahomigie, 1995). The ways of knowing within American Indian culture center on relationships (Cajete, 1994) and responses suggest the studied sites have room for improvement to foster relationships between schools and the American Indian communities.
Conclusions from Research Question 1. While non-American Indian educators did cite ways in which they use varying pedagogical processes, however the differentiation was not culturally specific. This indicated teachers understood the importance of differentiation, but not as it relates to culture. American Indian educators’ illustrations of their work with students demonstrated the presence of the components outlined by the Cultural Compatibility Theory but were most often in specific cultural settings (culture and language classes or services). There was a clear difference in cultural schooling practices used between American Indian and non-
American Indian educators. The reasons for these differences were not explored since this study was not designed to examine the causes behind the lack of cultural inclusion or differentiation. A future study could be conducted to examine effective adaptations to guide educators.
As previously stated, Culturally Responsive Schooling practices are effective for the identity development and achievement of American Indian students when they are holistic in nature and permeate the school (Demmert & Towner, 2003; James & Renville, 2012;
Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002). Similar to that of Beaulieu’s (2006) findings, services provided to students are fragmented in nature and often focused on remediation. In addition to this, the study concludes that the incorporation of Culturally Responsive Schooling practices are largely up to the discretion of educators and therefore sporadic. Inconsistent implementation of
Culturally Responsive Schooling practices could negatively impact the learning and achievement of the American Indian students served by these schools. Since student achievement was not examined in this study, no clear conclusions about student achievement in these schools can be drawn.
The lack of educator knowledge may be explained by data collected in the first phase of the interview inquiring about non-American Indian educators’ learning about the culture. The interview asked how non-American Indian educators learned about the culture in order to understand their student demographic and the impacts for teaching. Non-American Indian educators were clear with their lack of comfort and knowledge on cultural inclusion. Comments included:
I don’t necessarily understand it. I don’t want to step on toes.
Maybe it is that I a little timid and afraid because I don’t want to commit this cardinal sin. I guess I’m strong on the curriculum and maybe less strong on the cultural awareness aspect of how important it might be to American Indian students.
The findings regarding non-American Indian teaching staff not being knowledgeable enough or trained in connecting their curriculum to cultural practices and values is supported by prior literature examining the effectiveness of Montana’s Indian Education for All initiative (Ngai & Koehn, 2016). Ngai and Koehn (2016) identified the success of a culturally engaging curriculum to be dependent on the knowledge and preparedness of individual educators. Study participants did report their work to learn about the culture, however, was largely undertaken on an individual basis varied widely in understanding and depth. In addition, educators’ learning was not necessarily specific to curricular and pedagogical application, thus impacting the degree with which they incorporated Culturally Responsive Schooling practices. Non-American Indian staff largely reported ways they incorporate components outlined by the Cultural Compatibility Theory when topics aligned with the teaching unit, suggesting culture was not integrated into the daily curriculum. This lack of cultural consideration negatively impacts student identity
development as outlined by the research of (Agbo, 2001). More research would be needed to assess those impacts.
Lopez, Schram, and Heilig (2013) reported that for the outcomes of culturally responsive practices to be seen and assessed, they must first be present at an influential level. This requires teaching staff have adequate knowledge, skills, and resources to adequately do so. Participant responses suggest that Culturally Responsive Schooling practices are intermittent at best and vary widely within and between classrooms. Responses also indicated the absence of
administrative requirements or incentives to incorporate culture into the curriculum. Without administrative direction, educators are left to decide on cultural integration on their own leading to inconsistencies in classroom implementation.
Research Question 2
The second research question sought to understand educator perceptions of factors that support or inhibit their use of Culturally Responsive Schooling. The question also gathered educators’ perceptions regarding the benefits and challenges of incorporating culture.
Participant responses differed between American Indian and non-American Indian educators when considering the perceived supportive or inhibitive factors present to
incorporating culturally responsive practices. The Alaska Native Knowledge Network (1998) acknowledges the challenge in authenticity when working to deliver a culturally sensitive and informed curriculum. They report a strong necessity for educator partnerships with American Indian peers and community members to achieve success. Participants were specifically probed regarding their collaboration with fellow educators. The presence of collaboration would indicate Culturally Responsive Schooling that is holistic as the majority of educators were not American Indian. The present study illustrated differences in perceptions between American Indian and non-American Indian educators regarding the presence of collaboration.
Collaboration cited by non-American Indian educators ranged from regular collaboration (two respondents), to collaborating in specific instances (eight respondents), to not collaborating at all (three respondents) while American Indian participants cited little to no collaboration present. Despite non-American Indian educators citing more collaboration than American Indian educators, the degree to which they did cite collaboration could be classified as minimal.
The American Indian participants interviewed in this study shared frustrations with the fact that the non-American Indian educators did not engage them as partners in working with American Indian students. They did report that non-American Indian educators asked them to
answer questions or assist them in developing cultural activities in very specific instances. While they said they were appreciative of these instances, they cited frustration with the lack of meaningful collaboration and fragmented nature of implementing culture. Three Indian
Education staff members across two of the sites voiced with confidence the lack of knowledge about the services and purpose of the Indian Education Program within their building. They were confident teachers were unfamiliar with the purpose of Indian Education and the services they provide to students.
Beyond collaboration, non-American Indian staff members predominantly cited a perceived support for including cultural classroom components with only two respondents stating inhibiting factors. While non-American Indian educators stated feelings of support, they were unable to identify any specific ways in which administration was supporting or
incentivizing the use of culture among teachers. This leads the researcher to conclude that cultural inclusion is not asserted as a priority across the curriculum and is the reason educators were unable to identify specific supports. On the contrary, American Indian educators readily listed inhibiting factors to cultural inclusion within the school and provided specific illustrations of barriers they perceived that impede the implementation of Culturally Responsive Schooling. This list of inhibiting factors included a lack of directive from administration to include culture as well as restricting cultural practices within the building (drumming, smudging, etc.).
American Indian educators were readily aware of the missing cultural components whereas their non-American Indian counterparts were not.
Understanding the difference in perception between American Indian and non-American Indian educators may be understood when considering non-American Indian educators are often
of the majority culture in the United States. Non-American Indian educators hold the lens of the majority and may contribute to any cultural collaboration or content serving as salient. Non- American Indian educators’ limited understanding of cultural inclusion or importance may contribute to a lack of awareness for its presence in their classrooms. An American Indian respondent stated the need to take stock on one’s own lens and the presence of privilege within that lens. The same could be true of the differences in perception between American Indian and non-American Indian educators when considering administration support. Non-American Indian participants could not identify specific ways in which administration was supportive and rather identified this as an overall feeling. They were also unable to identify ways in which
administration was inhibiting and may have interpreted a lack of inhibitors as support. On the contrary, American Indian educators lamented a lack of support, as it is evident to them where further work is needed.
Participant K stated if they were to work within a culture different than their own:
I would try to learn some language and norms before I got there. You would think people do the same here that we’re on a reservation, but it’s not done.
American Indian responses demonstrated the emotional nature of the topic. Responses were perceived by the researcher to demonstrate both urgency and frustration. Urgency was illustrated in responses regarding the importance for students to learn the culture and language before these components are lost. Two responses cited the negative effects of societal influences impacting youth’s understanding of traditional practices and living. The researcher perceived deep frustration in multiple responses with the lack of understanding of their culture’s
Participants were also questioned regarding what they perceive to be the benefits and challenges to including culture to support American Indian students. Most of the non-American Indian educators said their lack of comfort with and knowledge of culture is the primary
challenge in their ability to incorporate Culturally Responsive Schooling practices into their work with students. American Indian educators reported the same lack of understanding or